Wednesday, March 10, 2010

New York Cops Kill a Man with Toy Gun - Again

The New York Daily News reports on another killing by cops of a man with a toy gun.

A cop responding to frantic 911 calls Monday shot and killed the son of a retired New York State lawman who witnesses said was waving an imitation pistol outside a Brooklyn school.

Some students were still milling around Public School 194 a half-hour after dismissal, when parents and residents said they saw the man brandishing the silver-and-black toy gun.

George D'Amato, 22, pointed the gun at the officer outside the Sheepshead Bay school and refused orders to drop it, police sources said. "[The officer] fired three times," one of the sources told the Daily News.

And what's with the pro-gun resistance to laws which might protect against these incidents? Does it sometimes seem like the gun rights advocates tend to resist any laws touching on guns regardless of whether they make sense or not? Suggestions of banning certain toy guns or marking them in some way are usually met with mockery and derision. The idea of preventing gun manufacturers from making colorful guns which can be easily mistaken for toys is likewise laughed at. Why?

FWM nailed it. In NYC, both realistic toy guns and bright paints for real guns are illegal. Got a "more illegaller" proposal in mind, Mikeb? Regardless, you can rest easy in knowing that this guy isn't going to do that again.

If someone wants to commit suicide by cop, he's likely to find a way, regardless of how many toys are banned.

And what's with the pro-gun resistance to laws which might protect against these incidents? Does it sometimes seem like the gun rights advocates tend to resist any laws touching on guns regardless of whether they make sense or not?

I guess I must have missed that. Reference? Speaking for myself, I am all for the orange tips on toy guns.

"And what's with the pro-gun resistance to laws which might protect against these incidents?..."

I'll echo FWM here: What laws are those?

"...Does it sometimes seem like the gun rights advocates tend to resist any laws touching on guns regardless of whether they make sense or not?..."

No. It doesn't seem that way to me. I resist any laws that make no sense, and I resist laws that are ineffective, and I resist laws that restrict freedom. What a surprise, then, that I would resist almost every gun control law, because they make no sense, are ineffective and restrict freedom.

"...Suggestions of banning certain toy guns or marking them in some way are usually met with mockery and derision..."

As they should be, because just like gun control does nothing to reduce crime, toy gun control is more of the same nonsense.

"...The idea of preventing gun manufacturers from making colorful guns which can be easily mistaken for toys is likewise laughed at. Why?"

Because, toy companies are free to produce whatever toys they want. It's no secret that the ones that look somewhat realistic are way more popular sellers than the ones that don't. And like all products, the consumer is responsible for what they do with it.

2) If a bad guy is stupid enough to think that a colored gun will keep him from being shot if it's pointed at a cop, all he has to do is buy a small bottle or can of dayglo paint and do it himself in 5 or 10 minutes.

George D'Amato, 22, pointed the gun at the officer outside the Sheepshead Bay school and refused orders to drop it, police sources said.

If someone is brandishing a weapon, and points it at someone else, what are they to assume? That it must be a toy? That could be a lethal mistake for the officer to make. Unless evidence is presented to alter the facts as shown, it was an appropriate reaction by the police officer.

As FishyJay said, there is the little problem of spray paint, and that is much easier to get than a gun (though I hear it is under lock and key in some high graffiti areas). Establishing a precedence that all toy guns are orange and all real guns are black, and police are to never fire on an orange gun will get officers killed.

As it is now, if they see a gun they yell “drop your weapon!” If instead of dropping it you point it at them you will get shot. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. As for the samurai sword incident: how would you feel if one of them lost a head, or had their jugular severed? What if an officer was alone, or just two of them instead of six? I’m reading into the story (since we are free to do that here at Mikeb30200), but I am more willing to believe that he was an intoxicated man with a cheap samurai knock-off, and not a “Samurai Warrior” as you called him.

Well I certainly don't deny that the first main person to blame is the guy who is foolish or mentally ill enough to point a gun at cops. But, a close second is the cops who shoot people down in the streets without ensuring that they really represent a lethal danger.

But, a close second is the cops who shoot people down in the streets without ensuring that they really represent a lethal danger.

And how do you suggest they ascertain that? Wait for him to shoot first? When someone--clearly not in a good place emotionally--points what looks like a gun at you, you don't have the luxury of careful investigation.

I think more often than not they fault on the side of trigger-happiness.

Easy to say, when you're not the one looking down the barrel of what looks like a gun. Easy to say, when everything you know about the incident comes from a newspaper story. Not much of one for requiring much of a burden of proof before condemning the defensive use of firearms, are you, Mikeb?